Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Well I only heard it from you, and like Truly True, haven't read it anywhere else. So I logically assumed that you had access to a link you could post, which you don't seem to have, or alternatively, that you had just made it up.
OK then, if you're a bit sensitive on that, let me re-phrase it into a direct question: would you sooner 100 people go hungry, than the Kardashians receive what you personally deem unfair positive publicity for feeding them.
I don't know and I don't care. I'm just happy that 100 additional mouths have been fed. Free food is free food, whatever the motive for its donation, and whether gourmet prepared or otherwise.”
No, I'm not in the habit of making things up. Like I say, you are as capable as I am of accessing sources of information online. They may or not have been surplus leftovers from her party. One is just as likely as the other, given that she had a well publicised party the night before. But just so you are not in any doubt, I repeat that I am not the source of that "theory". I simply reported what I read - which is that it was possibly her party leftovers.
I'm not sensitive about anything but nor will I be baited by you.

I have never said that there was anything
wrong with the Kardashian family giving 100 meals to the homeless but is there a particular reason why you think that we should be specifically congratulating or praising them for their efforts when we probably all know many other people who have done just as good things (and better)?
I'm very pleased with the efforts my family and I made this festive season with regards to doing things to try to benefit others. I'd even go so far as to say we all found it extremely liberating to opt out of the nonsensical business of giving and receiving things that none of us actually needed or wanted and to donate to our chosen charities instead. That is not to say that we cannot do more in future and I think this is likely to continue to be our approach to Christmas in years to come. It was what we wanted to do as a family but we did not do it in order to get a slap on the back. If we, an ordinary family like countless others can do something worthwhile for others without publicity, then why does a phenomenally wealthy and attention-hungry family like the Kardashians have to be applauded for it?
A couple of friends of mine slept out overnight before Christmas in order to raise awareness and raise funds for a homeless village to be set up here in Edinburgh. They raised over £6000 between them, doubling their original target. That was a really amazing thing to do and I admire them both greatly for it.
Another friend of mine volunteered for Crisis at Christmas and worked all day on both the 25th and 26th December, serving meals at a refuge. I happen to feel that his gesture was far more meaningful in the great scheme of things, given that he is just an ordinary guy giving up his own time with his own family and not a multi-millionairess, handing over a trifling sum of money which will never be missed.
So, no I would obviously NOT prefer that 100 people would instead go hungry, as per your ludicrous assertion but I am more naturally inclined to acknowledge and admire people whose efforts and contributions are inversely proportionate to their available resources. I do hope that clears matters up for you.